Dark Reign: The Future of War
| Developer: Auran | Graphics: |
 | |
| Publisher: Activision | Sound: |
| |
| Year: 1997* | Difficulty: |
 | |
| Genre: Real time strategy | Lastability: |
| |
| Number of players: 1** | Rating: |
6/10 | |
(*) An Xbox 360 adaptation was released in 2013 (Dark Reign Redux).
(**) Multiplayer “skirmish” mode for up to 8 players.
This game certainly has great multiplayer appeal, but I’m only considering the solo campaign. Not the skirmish mode, not the expansion, not the mods. The images are taken from the “updated” amateur and free version, including the latest updates and expansion, available on www.darkreignws.com. Don’t expect a graphical overhaul, just an easy installation on the latest Windows iterations.
I wanted to write a page about Command and Conquer (PC, 1995), but my credo happens to be “forgotten” games (or at best, those I try to forget, that’s done…). However, I stumbled upon this interview with Greg Lane, one of Dark Reign’s two creators, whom I’d never heard of before, and thought it would be more interesting to highlight this lesser-known game (from my perspective, at least).
Said specialist speaks of his stance on C&C: specifically, soldiers standing still, sustaining successive strikes sans stirring. Such senseless suicidal submission sparked this superior specimen’s substantial sophistication, seeking to surpass its celebrated source. Hhhrk-ptoo! Excuse me, I had something on my tongue.
To put it simply, Dark Reign offers a basic form of artificial intelligence (for troops to return fire, for starters, or to employ simple tactics like attacking and retreating). The various settings allow for the creation of “profiles” that can be assigned by the player to each of their units, giving them a degree of autonomy (defending a location, pursuing nearby enemies, returning for repairs if too much damage is taken, etc.). A function also allows programming patrols by placing waypoints on the map.
Visually, Dark Reign bears a strong resemblance to Command and Conquer, adopting almost identical interface, the way of constructing specialised buildings to form a base (power plants, barracks, vehicle factory…), the collection and transportation of resources (mainly water), the formation of an army (infantry, tanks, flying machines), right down to infiltration missions using special units (snipers, saboteurs…), which I already didn’t much care for in the original title, nor in Red Alert, for that matter.
A peculiarity: rather than offering two distinct campaigns for each faction, you’re led to repeat the same missions, first leading one side, then the other, without affecting the battle’s outcome. This is justified by the fact that the twelve missions offered are simulations, aimed at testing your commander skills before being sent into the past to fight the ultimate battle (for real, this time), and prevent the world’s destruction (shown in the game’s introduction scene). The atmosphere doesn’t match Command and Conquer, however. Both the story and briefings are communicated through pages of text, instead of iconic video sequences.
Technically, the changes are significant, but not always positive, in my opinion.
First, the good; I’d forgotten, but Command and Conquer didn’t allow queuing multiple units for production in advance. You had to click the button soldier by soldier, waiting for the first to exit the barracks before training a new one. Dark Reign introduces a queue system: I click the button ten times, and ten soldiers will be trained, one after another. Similarly, it’s possible to order successive movements (in zigzag) by pressing the “Tab” key.
However, I rarely used the automation options (except for returning for repairs). I didn’t feel the benefit of replacing unit micromanagement with manipulating keys hidden in multiple tabs of an overcrowded interface. And the few times I left a defence line unattended, ordering my troops to return fire, I came back two minutes later to find nothing but craters and smoke…
In Command and Conquer, my tanks and soldiers stayed where I placed them. What could happen to them depended on me. I felt responsible for my mistakes. In Dark Reign, I was constantly faced with wandering unit problems, not always explicable, and exacerbated by the multiple autonomy parameters. I don’t doubt that my incompetence is the primary cause, but this explains my negative feeling, the impression that my own units are playing against me, when the game is already difficult enough as it is.
Regarding pathfinding, Command and Conquer was sadly notorious for situations where units at the back of a convoy, crossing a narrow passage, would leave the path, follow terrain in another direction, and end up surrounded in enemy territory. This phenomenon was supposedly mitigated in Dark Reign, less due to programming skill than to tanks’ ability to pass through matter (when they feel like it)… In truth, the only innovation I noticed in this area was my tanks’ ability to line up neatly in front of the repair centre. A pleasant surprise, after the setbacks endured in Warzone 2100 Project.
Then there’s the innovation I could have done without: consideration of terrain type (certain vehicles are severely slowed by mud, others are submersible…), and variable field of vision depending on elevation (the fog of war won’t clear if you’re at the foot of a cliff, for example). In practice, the poorly readable geography brings much confusion and exacerbates the AI’s shortcomings. The typical case is the guard tower, which I built atop a hill to give it a clear view, getting peppered by a nearby tank without a peep. This image comes from the sinister mission 8…
Overall, I found the campaign difficult, particularly on the rebel side, because the “finesse” options went over my head. Units shoot and die particularly quickly. Even heavy tanks seem very fragile. Moreover, the enemy proves aggressive and unpredictable, and tends to counter-attack as soon as troops are moved. In a way, all the better. I usually tolerate difficulty quite well. So where’s the problem?
Well, I abruptly threw in the towel midway through mission 8, which concentrates all the annoyances I encountered in this game. I managed to complete it on the rebel side, painfully; but serving the Empire, I realised the cup was full, and that it would be a better idea to reinstall Command and Conquer, after all.
- The special units’ operation is poorly explained (even with manual in hand). The “phase transport”, for example, refused to advance while emitting a mysterious buzzing. I fought with it for half an hour before finally achieving the desired behaviour (transporting its five units from one end of the map to the other). I still haven’t understood the reason for its initial immobilisation (a bug?).
- I found two resource collectors at a standstill, face to face, on the path between the water source and my base. They had enough room to go around each other. I naturally noticed this once my credits were exhausted, after my base had been invaded.
- I became frustrated for quite a long while with the programmable “waypoint” system, trying (in vain) to explain to my harvester that undertaking a journey around the globe towards the enemy base wasn’t the optimal path. When I finally managed to make it follow my route, the harvester then refused to unload its cargo.
- I was impressed by the superior technology deployed by the enemy (the neutron turret and artillery), which decimated my assault groups. When I switched sides, I naturally wanted to try these new toys. How disappointed I was to see the powerful turret, as soon as it came into my possession, defeated by three grunts and a moped!
I cannot shake this growing suspicion, perhaps unfounded, that the rules vary depending on which side I’m on. The enemy uses long-range artillery that annihilates my battalions in two shots. But when I replay the same mission on the opposite side, the same artillery seems to inflict only a fraction of the damage on my enemies. The same goes for guard towers. The opponent’s towers always fire first when my tanks approach and destroy them with ease. I don’t believe I’ve observed the reciprocal…
Regardless of the difficulty, I didn’t feel I had complete control over my units, nor could I predict their behaviour, much less the outcome of engagements. If I’m not mistaken, Mr Lane, this contradicts your precept.
It might be worth noting that I haven’t found any criticism confirming my observations on the Internet. All reviews are laudatory and seem to confirm that the problem likely lies between my chair and keyboard…
To conclude, Dark Reign distinguishes itself too little from the countless Command and Conquer clones released in the late ’90s to recommend it (to anyone but nostalgic players). But could it have been otherwise in such a competitive genre? I’m doing it an injustice by testing it in 2024. Its main strength lay in its map and scenario editor, which brought real added value in 1997. Unfortunately, this is the most obsolete aspect today.
At the time of its release, it was considered a must-have for any fan of the genre who had completed Red Alert (1996). It was ahead of its time, for about a week, before the publication of Total Annihilation (and then Starcraft, six months later). Talk about bad luck!
Dark Reign still achieved reasonable success, all things considered (though far from overshadowing Red Alert). However, its 3D sequel, developed by another studio and released in 2000, was both a commercial and critical failure.
There are many other forgotten real time strategy games (memo to self): Z (1996), Krush Kill ‘n’ Destroy (1997), Dark Colony (1997), Earth 2140 (1997), Grey Goo (2015).
In the graphics options, check “maintain aspect ratio” and “integer scaling”. I forgot the second one, and it forced me to redo all the screenshots.
|
